McQuaid backs Lance probe

The Irishman, who succeeded Hein Verbruggen as UCI boss last Friday, added that any potential enquiry should be carried out "as soon as possible."

French sports paper L'Equipe last month revealed that 12 urine b-samples from the 1999 race had been found to contain the blood-boosting drug, with six of the samples reportedly provided by Armstrong.

IOC president Jacque Rogge and World Anti-Doping Agency supremo Dick Pound have both called for independent probes, and now the newly-installed McQuaid has given his own public backing.

The UCI has already launched its own investigation into the affair.

Armstong, who has consistently denied using performance-enhancing drugs throughout an all-conquering career, has openly contemplated legal action against L'Equipe.

The urine test for EPO was only standardized in 2000 and the A samples from 1999 have long been destroyed, making it impossible to carry out a counter-expertise.

McQuaid also stressed there was no danger of a conflict of interest between the UCI's own enquiry into the affair and the news -revealed by Eurosport - that Armstrong had donated a high-tech blood centrifuge to assist the UCI's fight against doping.

The gift was made prior to the EPO allegations.

"I am aware that there is a danger of that perception being there," said McQuaid.

"[But] I don't think there is any connection with it [the investigation]. If someone has provided assistance in the fight against doping, that doesn't prejudice the independence of the UCI in the anti-doping fight. Certain people might perceive it as [a conflict of interest], but intelligent people wouldn't."

In his feuding with McQuaid's predecessor Verbruggen, WADA chief Pound pointed to the gift in saying that "there is a legitimate reason" to suggest there may be a conflict of interest. The outspoken Canadian reiterated his organisation's unwillingness to cooperate with the UCI enquiry.

"I have said we are not prepared to participate in an investigation which only looks into one thing: how this embarrassing information happened to find its way to the public," said Pound.

"I think the investigation should include the substance of the matter - whether or not the test is correct and whether or not the link with certain athletes is correct. The UCI have not expressed the slightest interest in the substance: was it or was it not a positive test, was it or was it not Armstrong?"

But McQuaid stood by the UCI's position on the matter, reasoning that the body's anti-doping procedures were not followed - and any offenders could not be punished - as no 'control' sample was provided for a further tests which could confirm or exclude the use of performance-enhancing substances.

"If we expect athletes to follow ethical lines we all have to do the same," he said. "In this case the protocols were not followed so we cannot look at sanctions."